battle_interjection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key effects: the message appears as a human message under the user's name, and the exact wording is forwarded unchanged. It does not mention response/error behavior or persistence, but the core side effects of sending a human interjection are well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, display behavior, exact-word requirement, and follow-up action. The most important distinguishing characteristic is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains when to use it, what effect it has, and what to do next; it omits only minor edge-case details like failure handling or permissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schemas already document both roomId and content fully, including 'The human's exact message, do not modify', so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the exact-content requirement but adds no meaningful parameter-level facts beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb ('Forward') and resource ('the room'), and clearly differentiates this from AI-generated messages by emphasizing these are the HUMAN USER's personal words. It also names battle_send_message as the sibling to use after, so the tool's unique role is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when the user types something they want to say PERSONALLY to the discussion (not through the AI)'. It also gives a follow-up instruction to continue with battle_send_message, which acts as a clear routing hint versus the most likely alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.